Dennis Lillee vs Allan Donald

[Slifer]

SC is not one country. I use the 5 test/country rule. If you don’t want to agree with that, your wish, it’s subjective. Donald only played 5 or more tests at home, in Eng, in Aus, in WI. Lillee, in Aus, Eng and NZ. And Aus and Eng don’t offer similar conditions, you club them like its country, for Lillee.

England (and NZ)offers favorable conditions to fast bowling. And Lillee playing at home in 70s Australia ie familiar conditions would also be in his favor. I thought that was self explanatory.

I know the SC isn't one country but of the 34 away tests Donald played: 9 were in Asia (over 4 series), 7 in Australia, 5 in WI, 8 in England etc. Even if we use whatever rule you want, Donald played more extensively away and in far more unfamiliar/varied conditions than Lillee. And still ended up with a better record.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

England (and NZ)offers favorable conditions to fast bowling. And Lillee playing at home in 70s Australia ie familiar conditions would also be in his favor. I thought that was self explanatory.

I know the SC isn't one country but of the 34 away tests Donald played: 9 were in Asia (over 4 series), 7 in Australia, 5 in WI, 8 in England etc. Even if we use whatever rule you want, Donald played more extensively away and in far more unfamiliar/varied conditions than Lillee. And still ended up with a better record.

Donald played in more varying conditions perhaps. But I use the 5 test rule according which I judge his record in Eng, home, Aus, WI. For Lillee at home, Eng, NZ.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Trying to give him credit for opposite things of course.




Of course you are.

For some time, not for a long time. For a considerable amount of time, Lillee was a lone warrior, but not always.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

England (and NZ)offers favorable conditions to fast bowling. And Lillee playing at home in 70s Australia ie familiar conditions would also be in his favor. I thought that was self explanatory.

I know the SC isn't one country but of the 34 away tests Donald played: 9 were in Asia (over 4 series), 7 in Australia, 5 in WI, 8 in England etc. Even if we use whatever rule you want, Donald played more extensively away and in far more unfamiliar/varied conditions than Lillee. And still ended up with a better record.

Again, if you want to count all those tests together for Asia no problem. I just go on a country to country basis

 

[Bolo.]

Noted but you didn't address my points.

McGrath recovered a rep on par with Ambrose and Wasim despite coming later. Donald didn't.

And Donald's struggles against Australia are the real reason he isn't seen as highly. In fact, you have Australians like Gillespie and Ponting who debuted mid 90s and still rate Donald behind.

Mcgrath developed his rep after the others retired when it became clear he had had a better career. He was rated lower than Ambrose at least (IDK about Donald and Wasim) for most of his career. I brought him into the conversation because he demonstrates the point I'm making even more clearly than Donald.

Donald's body was completely shot for two series in his career- his last two vs AUS. Those two would have seen him in 3 or 4 series each. When you mostly see a bowler at their worst, you don't rate them. Huge shock that. But if players are too thick to seperate the quality of a career from worst performances, then it's just further ammo against peer reputation.

 

[Coronis]

Mcgrath developed his rep after the others retired when it became clear he had had a better career. He was rated lower than Ambrose at least (IDK about Donald and Wasim) for most of his career. I brought him into the conversation because he demonstrates the point I'm making even more clearly than Donald.

Donald's body was completely shot for two series in his career- his last two vs AUS. Those two would have seen him in 3 or 4 series each. When you mostly see a bowler at their worst, you don't rate them. Huge shock that. But if players are too thick to seperate the quality of a career from worst performances, then it's just further ammo against peer reputation.

I’m sure some Indians consider Michael Clarke to be the most difficult spinner they ever faced.

 

[Slifer]

Mcgrath developed his rep after the others retired when it became clear he had had a better career. He was rated lower than Ambrose at least (IDK about Donald and Wasim) for most of his career. I brought him into the conversation because he demonstrates the point I'm making even more clearly than Donald.

Donald's body was completely shot for two series in his career- his last two vs AUS. Those two would have seen him in 3 or 4 series each. When you mostly see a bowler at their worst, you don't rate them. Huge shock that. But if players are too thick to seperate the quality of a career from worst performances, then it's just further ammo against peer reputation.

Precisely. That series down under in 2002 alone I believe took his average in Australia from around 24 to 28. And that was vs the best batting lineup since the Invincibles.

 

[Slifer]

Again, if you want to count all those tests together for Asia no problem. I just go on a country to country basis

I only count them relative to the persons we're debating at the time. May I ask why you (and Subz) hold Ambrose only playing 12 tests outside of Eng/Aus against him but not Lillee. Outside of NZ/Eng Lillee played 5 tests elsewhere. Like Ambrose, it wasn't Lillee's fault but in the Ambrose debate it didn't matter to you guys...

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I only count them relative to the persons we're debating at the time. May I ask why you (and Subz) hold Ambrose only playing 12 tests outside of Eng/Aus against him but not Lillee. Outside of NZ/Eng Lillee played 5 tests elsewhere. Like Ambrose, it wasn't Lillee's fault but in the Ambrose debate it didn't matter to you guys...

I rank Ambrose in the top 6, don’t hold too much against him

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Here I might go for Donald instead, you guys make good points about his record vs Aus

 

[Bolo.]

Precisely. That series down under in 2002 alone I believe took his average in Australia from around 24 to 28. And that was vs the best batting lineup since the Invincibles.

His 'weakness' against AUS is greatly exaggerated as well. Quicks struggled to take wickets in RSA/AUS until recently. He has only 4 fewer wickets than Mcgrath in 8 fewer Innings, despite the timing of the last 2 series and the fact that AUS were better bats. And he compares even more favourably in relation to Pollock .

 

[subshakerz]

Donald's body was completely shot for two series in his career- his last two vs AUS. Those two would have seen him in 3 or 4 series each. When you mostly see a bowler at their worst, you don't rate them. Huge shock that. But if players are too thick to seperate the quality of a career from worst performances, then it's just further ammo against peer reputation.

Again, none of this means that he had much success against Australia. Only one good series.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Again, none of this means that he had much success against Australia. Only one good series.

One decent(13 wickets@28), one great and the last, context explains for that. So overall, good, nothing near Ambrose or Hadlee level. I’ll take Steyn in Aus over Donald tho

 

[subshakerz]

One decent(13 wickets@28), one great and the last, context explains for that. So overall, good, nothing near Ambrose or Hadlee level. I’ll take Steyn in Aus over Donald tho

This is excluding the fact that Donald misfired against Australia at home in 93 and 96, along with the injured solo test in 2002. Worth pointing out that he didn't really fail against others at home like that.

My point being that, home and away, Donald was well below ATG standards against the best batting lineup.

 

[kyear2]

From 95 on (about 75% of Donald's career), which of the 3 would you pick? Hint: this is a rhetorical question.

If 2 bowlers have identical career records and one starts earlier (or peaks earlier), he will be fairly rated as better up until the last test of his career. But when the last test is done, they are the same.

One of the many issues with peer and journalistic ratings are that, it depends on how players performed vs which countries, and factors in such unnecessary attributes such as personality, popularity and flamboyance. As I mentioned earlier, the issue with Donald is that he didn't perform well vs Australia and they, for better or worse, have the loudest voice.

As someone also mentioned above, Lille also greatly benefitted from re-sparking the fast bowler movement and to a certain reinvigorating the sport.


Wasim in the other hand greatly benefitted from the conflation and association with his odi record.

But at the end of the day. Warne, Viv and Lillee aren't 3 of the top 6 players who ever played the game and Wasim isn't a top 3 test fast bowler, no matter how many batsman repeat it.

Donald played for a country just recently readmitted with no good will coming back into the sport, and reputationally representationally small. Look at Hadlee, he was hardly seen as better than Lillee or the Caribbean guys.

And he's not the subject of this discussion, but since we're on the topic, this automatic Asia requirement is getting old tbh. In a close comp, sure, it can be instructive, but looking at someone like a Trueman, playing in the Caribbean, especially vs that lineup was as challenging as any conditions in any era. In instances like that, to still say he wasn't proven in Asia, seems redundant.

Is it that we want to see bowlers in varied conditions, flat etc? Or is it that they my h pass the SC test? In the 50's that wouldn't have been a test, or challenge tbh.

Proven in varied and challenging conditions, home and away should be the ask, not a succession of check lists. And don't get me wrong, the more the merrier, but let's also take into account what they did and vs whom.

 

[Slifer]

Again, none of this means that he had much success against Australia. Only one good series.

Where was this "Australia energy" in prior debates?? In prior debates (where you had your agenda) you were quite dismissive of a certain bowlers outstanding record vs Oz. But now all of a sudden you want to highlight for Donald. And again, I'll ask why not also hold Lillee's record vs Pakistan against him???

 

[subshakerz]

Where was this "Australia energy" in prior debates?? In prior debates (where you had your agenda) you were quite dismissive of a certain bowlers outstanding record vs Oz. But now all of a sudden you want to highlight for Donald. And again, I'll ask why not also hold Lillee's record vs Pakistan against him???

I've explained. It didn't apply in previous debates of Imran vs Ambrose since they both did well vs their top sides. I always gave Ambrose credit for being the best ever in Australia. But the question of who is more well rounded applied more then.

I demerit Lillee for not having a SC record of somewhat success like Donald.

But I have to demerit Donald more for not having success against the best side. Plus his peer rating is lower than any other top tier pacer.

Also, do note, if Donald had a bunch of standout match/series away performances outside of the best side he faced, like Warne for example, I could have been willing to forgive his Aussie weakness. He doesn't. Just some flashy figures without big impact. He wasn't really a matchwinner away from home.

But yes overall it is close, Lillee gets the edge. Hopefully my view makes sense.

 

[Bolo.]

Again, none of this means that he had much success against Australia. Only one good series.

I've been avoiding talking about his quality with you. I'm talking about the problems with how you are rating them.

Analysing players against a single country is just a bad way to go. Too much variance. Putting a country on a pedestal is also nonsensical. You have to beat everyone, and are generally better off performing better against the number 2/3 team than number 1. Performances against everyone quality is important.

Very few bowlers have played against only one number 1 team. WI were 1 at the start of Donalds career for example. Does this mean we should ignore his early AUS record and look at WI instead?

 

[Slifer]

"Ambrose has little returns to show in Pak, NZ, SL and SA. Never played in India. His entire career is based on friendly away pitches in Australia, England." We could reasonably replace Lillee with the above statement and replace Australia with Eng and NZ. Then replace the 4 test countries for Curtly, with the others of Lillee's time. ....

 

[subshakerz]

"Ambrose has little returns to show in Pak, NZ, SL and SA. Never played in India. His entire career is based on friendly away pitches in Australia, England." We could reasonably replace Lillee with the above statement and replace Australia with Eng and NZ. Then replace the 4 test countries for Curtly, with the others of Lillee's time. ....

Again, we were putting Ambrose against someone who also succeeded against the best batting lineup of his time. Not Donald. Why is this so hard to understand?